Talk:Books before 1900: Difference between revisions

From Folkopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
In addition, I think that the date divisions need revisiting to consider how to cope with anomalies like this.
In addition, I think that the date divisions need revisiting to consider how to cope with anomalies like this.
--[[User:JohnnyAdams|JohnnyAdams]] 12:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
--[[User:JohnnyAdams|JohnnyAdams]] 12:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite frankly, is a date division of this sort justified anyway, as it isn't related to a specific event or change in the collecting world that I'm aware of ? You might just as well use the 1914 date (which was used at the Folklife conference in Sheffield recently to denote just such a specific change in the world in general. Why not pre-1850, or pre-1800 books if you're going to do it in the current way etc etc? I would have thought that a listing of books, by date order of publication might be a more natural way of organising it without imposing an artifical date divide.... just MHO, of course.
--[[User:Irene Shettle|Irene Shettle]] 01:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:42, 21 November 2007

Lucy Broadwood's "English Traditional Songs and Carols" has been submitted in this category. However, as is quite correctly shown, it was not published until 1908. The date of collection of the songs is a secondary factor, as the category title makes it quite clear that the deciding criterion is the actual date of publication. In the circumstances in my opinion this book should correctly be allocated to the post-1900 section. --Irene Shettle 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


That's a fair point. I would suggest putting it in the pre 1900 section with the inclusion of a phrase like "...although not published until 1908, the contents relate to 19th findings" or something like that.

In addition, I think that the date divisions need revisiting to consider how to cope with anomalies like this. --JohnnyAdams 12:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, is a date division of this sort justified anyway, as it isn't related to a specific event or change in the collecting world that I'm aware of ? You might just as well use the 1914 date (which was used at the Folklife conference in Sheffield recently to denote just such a specific change in the world in general. Why not pre-1850, or pre-1800 books if you're going to do it in the current way etc etc? I would have thought that a listing of books, by date order of publication might be a more natural way of organising it without imposing an artifical date divide.... just MHO, of course. --Irene Shettle 01:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)